[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
PART 2, TEXT OF ILC SPECIAL SITTING
- Subject: PART 2, TEXT OF ILC SPECIAL SITTING
- From: darnott@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 08:54:00
1LC SPECIAL SITTING ON BURMA PART 2
Special sitting concerning the application by Myanmar of the Forced Labour
Convention, 1930 (No. 29), in application of the resolution adopted by the
International Labour Conference at its 88th (2000) Session International
Labour Conference
Provisional Record 19 PART THREE Eighty-ninth Session, Geneva, 2001
A. RECORD OF THE DISCUSSION IN THE COMMITTEE ON THE APPLICATION OF
STANDARDS, 11 JUNE, 2001
THE GOVERNMENT MEMBER OF SOUTH AFRICA emphasized it had long been his
country's conviction that the existing situation in Myanmar could only
change with the coming into play of new elements on the basis of an
objective assessment carried out by the ILO. His Government had also
indicated its unambiguous and unwavering support for the maintenance of
action against the Government of Myanmar as long as it showed no
willingness to change its position on forced labour. He was therefore
heartened by the report before the Committee, which showed some positive
gestures towards the achievement of the objective of eradicating forced
labour in Myanmar. The report of the mission led by the Representative of
the Director-General was quite encouraging and he commended the parties on
their vision in resolving the matter.
The speaker urged the Office to remain vigilant and support the dispatch of
the High-Level Team, which should be allowed complete discretion as to its
activities during its work. He urged the Government of Myanmar to continue
on its positive path, which he believed would lead to a conducive working
environment for its people. He looked forward to examining the report of
the High-Level Team in November.
THE WORKER MEMBER OF PAKISTAN recalled that the resolution adopted by the
Conference the previous year under article 33 of the ILO Constitution was
the result of a process which dated back to the 1960s. The Committee of
Experts had already raised the issue of the use of forced labour in the
country in 1964, 1966 and 1967. Following the ICFTU representation under
article 24 of the Constitution in 1993, and the persistent attempts by the
Government to deny the evidence of forced labour, the Commission of Inquiry
had been set up in 1997. In its report, following a series of hearings in
which the Government refused to participate, as well as refusing to let the
Commission into the country, three areas had been addressed in which
measures were required to achieve compliance with Convention No. 29: the
amendment of the legislation in accordance with the Convention; the
adoption of measures to stop the exaction of forced or compulsory labour in
practice; and the imposition of penalties on those who had perpetrated the
crimes. The time limit set by the Commission for compliance with the
recommendations was 1 May 1999.
This historical review underlined the fact that the series of measures
envisaged by the Conference the previous year were rooted very clearly in
the implementation of all three of the broad recommendations of the
Commission of Inquiry. The resolution adopted in June 2000 had been the
decisive factor in prompting the Government to enter into discussions with
the NLD leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and to accept an ILO mission.
However, until all the three areas had been irreversibly addressed with
action to restore democracy and end forced labour, the measures envisaged
in the resolution should be maintained and their implementation
strengthened as a key instrument of pressure on the regime. He therefore
commended the Director-General on the action taken and he hoped that the
work of the ILO would bring relief to those who were suffering in the
country. He urged the Government to implement the recommendations of the
Commission of Inquiry in their letter and spirit and to give all due
cooperation and support to the ILO.
THE GOVERNMENT MEMBER OF THE NETHERLANDS supported the statement made on
behalf of the European Union. He added that since the decision taken by the
Governing Body in November 2000 to give effect to the measures under the
resolution adopted in accordance with article 33 of the ILO Constitution,
his country had held tripartite consultations and reviewed its relations
with the Government. Since its first response to the request for
information from the Director-General, his country had taken further steps
and had the intention of discouraging transactions relating to trade with
and investment in the country. The Netherlands had taken note of the
agreement of the Government to receive an ILO High-Level Team and took a
keen interest in the findings of the Team, which would be discussed by the
Governing Body in November 2001. His country would continue to monitor
carefully the forced labour situation and was convinced that, in the
absence of a concrete and clear improvement in the situation, it was too
early to exclude the possibility of further measures.
THE WORKER MEMBER OF JAPAN welcomed the understanding concluded between the
ILO and the Government in May 2001 concerning the visit of the High-Level
Team and urged both parties to implement it with sincerity. He expressed
the hope that all forms of forced and compulsory labour would be eliminated
in the country as soon as possible in both law and practice. However, he
noted information that the military regime had threatened villagers in
several areas not to tell the truth about forced labour. He therefore urged
the ILO and the Government to give the High-Level Team full authority to
investigate the current situation. He hoped that the work of the High-Level
Team would enable the international community to understand what was going
on in the country. He appreciated the efforts made by the United Nations
and Asian countries, including Japan, to restore dialogue between the ILO
and the Government.
He emphasized that democratization was another important issue which was
closely related to resolving the situation with regard to forced labour.
Human rights and trade union rights were of great importance to democracy,
but were incompatible with the military regime. The Japanese Trade Union
Confederation (RENGO) supported the activities of those who had been
compelled to leave Burma because of their participation in democratizing
the country. A Burma office had been set up in Tokyo to promote democracy
in Burma. He urged the Government to guarantee pro-democracy activities
without any restrictions in the country. He also called upon the Government
of Japan to put pressure on the Government to guarantee its people freedom
from all kinds of oppression and for the restoration of democracy. An
important meeting had been held in Tokyo earlier in the year on further
trade union action on the question. It had been decided to implement a
programme of action to promote and strengthen the ILO resolution and to
request the Government of Japan to review its relations with the country.
Trade union representatives had proposed that Japanese overseas development
aid should be strictly limited to humanitarian purposes and used cautiously
so as to ensure that it did not promote the use of forced labour. They had
also called on the Government of Japan to request the Government not to use
forced labour for the activities covered by Japanese overseas development
aid and to accept an international group of inquiry to monitor its use.
He expressed deep concern about the resumption of Japanese overseas
development aid to the country, which had been halted in 1988 after the
takeover of the military regime, and especially the grant for the repair of
the Baluchaung hydroelectric power station. The aid was still premature.
Apart from humanitarian assistance, Japan should not provide aid that would
benefit the military regime. The Japanese Government had a great
responsibility for resolving the forced labour issue, as Japanese aid had
amounted to 62.7 per cent of the total external aid to the country in
1997. If the current situation with regard to forced labour was not
improved, this assistance should immediately be stopped. If necessary,
concrete action should be taken with the international community to
eradicate all forms of forced and compulsory labour in the country.
THE GOVERNMENT MEMBER OF CANADA welcomed the recently signed understanding
on the ILO's objective assessment, which was to focus on the practical
implementation and actual impact of the framework of legislative, executive
and administrative measures against forced labour which the Government had
announced that it had taken since October 2000. He stated that unless this
assessment suggested otherwise, existing ILO measures should remain in
place and emphasized that the ILO alone could provide an assessment of
sufficient authority to bear legal, political and practical consequences
internationally.
Given the vital standards at stake, he hoped that the Government of Burma
would fully respect the agreed modalities and provide every guarantee that
it would cooperate to ensure that the assessment was objective and
credible. He emphasized that, to that end, the ILO's High-Level Team should
be accorded complete discretion and freedom of movement in the organization
and conduct of its programme of activities and meetings, as agreed in the
understanding signed on 19 May 2000. He repeated his comments to the
Governing Body in November 2000, namely that Canada had never sought a
quarrel with the people of Burma, but sought an end to the abuse of their
rights. He emphasized that forced labour amounted to indecent work which
was unworthy of any ILO member State.
THE WORKER MEMBER OF COLOMBIA regretted that the members of the Committee
were once again required to address the issue of Myanmar due to the
Government's stubborn refusal to comply with ILO Conventions and
Recommendations, to which was added the Government's inexplicable failure
to comply with the resolutions adopted by the ILO.
He added that in 1997 Myanmar's unacceptable conduct had forced the
Committee on the Application of Standards to place its comments in a
special paragraph, given the Government's failure to effect any real
change. He called for all workers to unite in the face of Myanmar's failure
to submit to the ILO supervisory mechanisms and expressed his solidarity
with the workers of Myanmar, especially in their struggle to achieve the
observance of the ILO's fundamental Conventions and Recommendations,
particularly Convention No. 29 on forced labour.
He stressed that under no circumstances could any government in any part of
the world justify work performed under conditions of slavery and exacted
through the use of force. He agreed with the Government of Myanmar that the
best sanctions were those that were not applied. However, when a Government
systematically refused to play by the established rules, implementing
sanctions was the only method left, although no one liked to apply such
methods.
Speaking on behalf of the workers of Latin America and the Caribbean, he
once again urged the Government of Myanmar to comply fully with the
provisions of ILO Conventions and Recommendations, beginning with
Convention No. 29, thereby ending the suffering of those workers who were
victims of forced labour. He also asked the Government to impose sanctions
designed to make an example of those responsible for these violations of
human rights.
He appealed to the Government of Myanmar to cooperate fully so that the ILO
might carry out its work directly in the territory where the events had
taken place. If the Government were truly convinced that its attitude and
conduct were democratic, it should not have any reservations in agreeing to
the ILO mission.
THE WORKER MEMBER OF ITALY, referring to the major problems and results
relating to companies under paragraph 1( b) of the Conference resolution,
said that the report to the Governing Body showed that few employers'
organizations had replied to the Director General's request for
information. Respondents included the Finnish Confederation of Industry,
the Confederation of Norwegian Business and the Confederation of British
Industry, as well as the International Organization of Employers. She
appreciated the fact that many companies had ceased to do business in the
country. However, major companies based in other countries were still
importing goods produced in the country. There had been an explosion of
clothing exports, including to the United States and the European Union,
despite the ILO action which had been taken. Goods such as rice and beans
were being exported by transshipment through countries such as Malaysia and
Singapore. Before the last session of the Governing Body, the ICFTU had
presented the ILO with a wide-ranging report indicating that many companies
involved in the oil and gas, timber, rice, agriculture, fisheries,
textiles, finance and tourism industries were still doing business with or
in the country and had made other business contacts with the regime since
November 2000. There were some 300 such companies from over 30 countries.
The ICFTU report also contained information on over 580 cases of forced
labour. Some of the evidence of forced labour related directly to the
operation of the gas pipeline linking Burma with Thailand, involving French
and American multinationals, as well as the construction of tourist
infrastructure, in which the country's military leaders appeared to be
directly involved. A British-owned company was also heavily involved in gas
pipeline operations in the country. Moreover, a hydroelectric plant would
be built as a result of a 29 million dollar grant from the Japanese
Government, as a reward for opening dialogue with the opposition leader Daw
Aung San Suu Kyi. Some other governments and industries were hiding behind
these apparently new developments to continue business as usual. In that
respect, she recalled that similar talks in the past had yielded no results.
She said that a large share of the income generated by foreign investment
was used by the Junta to buy weapons for use against its own people. China
was one of the main arms suppliers. The ICFTU and the International Trade
Secretariats had already planned action to place pressure on those
companies, some of them multinationals, which had been identified in
Canada, France, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Spain and the
United States. Trade unions in the energy industry, meeting recently in
Bangkok, had called on oil and gas companies to cease investments in Burma
while the use of forced labour continued. The trade union campaign had also
started to target shareholders and institutional investors in some
multinational enterprises investing in the country. One of the largest
pension funds in the world had announced at its annual general meeting that
it was proposing a resolution asking the company to withdraw from the
country. In a case in the United States, a judge had stated the opinion
that the company concerned by the lawsuit knew that forced labour was being
utilized and that joint ventures benefited from the practice. In the past,
governments and companies had hidden behind the absence of a global and
binding decision to justify their inaction. Now there was a global decision
by a United Nations body which gave them legitimate grounds to take action,
as some of them had already done. She therefore urged employers'
organizations and companies, in consultation with trade unions, to comply
with the full provisions of the resolution. She also called on
international and regional financial organizations to verify carefully the
indirect projects and foreign direct investment in the country carried out
through other countries and organizations. Any hesitation at this stage in
implementing the agreed measures could jeopardize the efforts to eliminate
forced labour and the resumption of talks for democracy.
THE GOVERNMENT MEMBER OF SWITZERLAND noted that she had listened
attentively to the explanations given by the Government of Myanmar as well
as to the opinions expressed by the Employer and Worker members.
She indicated that the report of the last mission to Myanmar had contained
positive points. She added that the three-week evaluation mission, which
would take place next September, should examine the effective and good
faith application of the legislative amendments requested. It was important
that this mission have complete freedom of action, particularly so that it
could define its own programme. These recent developments were an important
step toward a constructive commitment on the part of the Myanmar Government
to respond to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Swiss
Government therefore awaited with optimism the report that the mission
would submit to the November 2001 Governing Body and would evaluate at that
time the real political will of the Burmese authorities.
THE WORKER MEMBER OF SWAZILAND emphasized that forced labour was a very
serious violation and flagrant disregard for humandignity and must not be
forgiven for as long as it existed. Every effort to eradicate the evil of
forced labour had to be supported by all advocates of humanity and social
justice. The present case put to the test the fundamental obligation of the
ILO and its mandate. The ILO needed to answer the question of what was the
acceptable desired result of ratification. Was it merely the adoption of a
statute that was in conformity with the obligations undertaken, or did it
need to be applied in both law and practice? The ICFTU report had shown
that forced labour was still prevalent on the ground. He affirmed that a
law that only existed on the statute books, and was not applied in
practice, was not worth the paper it was written on. Unless the Government
accepted that it was out of line with the requirements of Convention
No. 29, which it had ratified voluntarily 46 years ago, it would be
impossible for it to correct the wrongs that it was committing.
Nevertheless, as indicated in document D. 6, the Government had written to
the United Nations Secretary-General condemning the decision of the
Governing Body as a "grave injustice" and querying the mandate of the
Director-General and the Conference on this issue.
He reaffirmed that the ratification of any international covenant by any
government was a direct undertaking that it would enforce the covenant in
law and in practice and that it would accept being monitored and questioned
in the event that it violated the provisions of the covenant. Convention
No. 29 was one of the core labour standards which, when applied, gave
dignity to the worker. Without such dignity there could be no decent work.
Moreover, forced labour constituted slavery and a crime against human
dignity, and as such was incongruent with the dictates of social justice.
The Committee was duty bound to uproot the evil of forced labour to restore
dignity to the workers and people of the country. It should not therefore
underestimate the gravity of this violation against humanity.
He said that governments which were prone to commit crimes against humanity
did not readily desist from such practices without international pressure.
If sanctions had not been applied against the apartheid regime in South
Africa, its people would not have achieved democracy when they did. He
therefore implored all countries to support social justice and maintain the
sanctions until the people of Burma enjoyed an environment which was free
of forced labour, guaranteed democracy and respected human and trade union
rights and the rule of law. Only when the evaluation process by the ILO
confirmed that Convention No. 29 was applied in law and practice could the
sanctions be lifted.
THE WORKER MEMBER OF THAILAND indicated that in his country, there were
more than 1 million illegal immigrants and nearly 20,000 refugees from
Myanmar. These migrations had taken place over many years. The persons
affected suffered from very bad social and economic conditions and had
migrated to Thailand to escape poverty which resulted from both economic
conditions and forced labour in Myanmar. These immigrants from Myanmar were
vulnerable and were often badly exploited by their employers as they had no
one to help them. At the same time, employers used the illegal immigrants
to replace Thai workers who were facing difficulties in maintaining their
working standards, especially in the area of occupational safety and
health, and who demanded that ILO standards be respected. The political,
economic and social condition of Thai workers was affected by these illegal
immigrants and refugees who were the result of the political, economic and
social conditions in Myanmar. Unless there was stability in that
neighbouring country, Thailand would continue to face adverse consequences.
Finally, the speaker welcomed the decision to send an ILO High-Level Team
which would monitor the forced labour situation in Myanmar. He suggested
that this Team visit the border between Thailand and Myanmar to gather
information about the situation by talking to the refugees and the
immigrants there. At the same time, he suggested that in accordance with
article 33 of the ILO Constitution, the ILO resolution on Myanmar be kept
in place until forced labour was totally eradicated in that country.
THE GOVERNMENT MEMBER OF NAMIBIA stated that his Government was deeply
concerned and horrified by the continued instances of forced labour in some
parts of the world and, in particular, the critical situation in Myanmar.
While he welcomed the statement of commitment and the assurance made by the
representative of the Government of Myanmar, he strongly urged it to match
this undertaking with concrete steps. Furthermore, he unreservedly endorsed
the proposal for the ILO to send a team of experts to Myanmar to fully
investigate the situation as soon as practicable. It was his firm view that
this matter should remain on the ILO agenda until the Government of Myanmar
fully complied with Convention No. 29.
THE GOVERNMENT MEMBER OF INDIA stressed that her Government was strongly
opposed to the practice of forced labour. Countries voluntarily adhering to
the ILO Conventions should comply fully with them. In regard to the matter
before the present Committee, her Government believed that the ILO's
objectives could best be promoted through dialogue and cooperation and not
through punitive measures or the threat of use of such measures. Her
Government, therefore, advocated the path of constructive dialogue and
cooperation between the ILO and the Government of Myanmar. The speaker also
took note of an ILO mission to Myanmar the previous month, mentioned in
document D. 7. She also took note of the information submitted by the
Government of Myanmar in document D. 9 (information submitted in writing by
the Government of Myanmar regarding the Memorandum on the understanding
between the Myanmar Government and the ILO on the modalities of objective
assessment on Myanmar's observance of ILO Convention No. 29 (prohibiting
forced labour). The undertaking of an ILO objective assessment through the
visit of a High-Level Team to Myanmar in September this year was a step in
the right direction. The flexibility and constructive approach shown by the
Government of Myanmar and the ILO were to be appreciated. This development
underscored yet again the need to abnegate the punitive approach and to
pursue the path of dialogue and technical cooperation.
THE WORKER MEMBER OF SWEDEN indicated that her intervention would be
focused on the replies of the governments and UN agencies to the 200
letters sent by the Director-General, asking them to act in accordance with
the ILO resolution and to inform the ILO about specific measures taken. She
was pleased to note that in some countries the political establishment was
responding. On 22 May 2001, in the United States, Senators Tom Harkin and
Jesse Helms introduced a Bill prohibiting all imports from Myanmar,
specifically in response to the ILO's request. This Bill had bipartisan
support in both Houses of Congress. In Norway, the Government was engaged
in serious talks with groups in opposition to the Junta in order to divest
its investments. At the same time, the speaker stressed that more should be
done, and that pressure on the regime should be maintained by all.
Disturbing events had taken place since the timid steps taken by the Junta.
After the visit paid by the European Union Troika to Yangon at the end of
January, the European Union had considerably slowed down its engagement in
condemning the current situation in Myanmar. The European Union was
apparently content with the mere hope that contacts would develop further,
broadening as well as deepening, so as to promote national reconciliation,
democracy and human rights. The speaker put into question the decision by
the EU to grant a visa to a high representative of the Government enabling
him to participate in an international forum last May in Brussels. What was
most disturbing, however, was the situation regarding trade and
investments. Myanmar's trade with both the United States and the European
Union had soared recently, while the United States remained Myanmar's
largest export market. In this respect, she indicated that the government
export to the US grew by around 400 per cent after 1997 and by about 200
per cent to Norway. Bilateral trade between Myanmar and the three northeast
Asian countries (China, Japan and the Republic of Korea), totalled US$
187.69 million in the first two months of this year, a 36.3 per cent rise
compared with the same period in 2000. China, which had border trade with
Myanmar in addition to normal trade, stood as Myanmar's third largest
trading partner after Thailand and Singapore, while Japan and the Republic
of Korea remained Myanmar's fourth and fifth largest trading partners
respectively. In particular, the speaker recalled the reported intention of
the Government of Japan to provide a 3.53 billion yen grant for the repair
of the Baluchaung Hydropower Station, a project in Karenni State, a region
affected by the civil war in Myanmar for which forced labour would most
likely be used, directly or indirectly. This was against the spirit of the
adopted ILO resolution which needed to be implemented by all its member
States, now more than ever.
THE GOVERNMENT MEMBER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM fully supported the statement
made by the Government member of Sweden on behalf of the European Union. He
recalled that the European Union had been unstinting in expressing its
concern about the practice of forced labour in Burma and had been
instrumental in pushing for steps to apply article 33 measures during the
last International Labour Conference and the Governing Body in November. He
therefore did not recognize the portrayal of the European Union position
contained in the Swedish Worker member's statement. The crucial question
before this Committee was not a technical issue relating to the
bureaucratic processes adopted by the Burmese regime. It was for the
Committee to decide how and when the morally abhorrent practice of forced
labour in Burma could be ended. The visit of the High-Level Team to Burma
in September would be a first step in the assessment process, although
three weeks was a very short time to ascertain whether forced labour had
diminished or stopped in Burma. He reiterated the importance of the
High-Level Team being granted freedom of access to witnesses and stressed
the importance of all interviews being conducted in conditions where the
interests of witnesses could be protected. The High-Level Team should be
able to visit all areas of the country, including difficult border areas
such as Rakhine, Chin, Kayin, and Kayah. The High-Level Team should also be
able to decide when was the most appropriate time to visit Burma and the
Director-General should have full freedom in appointing members of the
team. In that context he was attracted by the suggestion that members of
the original Commission of Inquiry should participate in the team. One
thing should be clear: if in November the High-Level Team was able to
report that forced labour in Burma had ended, then article 33 measures
would be lifted. If, however, the High-Level Team reported that forced
labour still existed or that they had been impeded in carrying out their
assessment, then the United Kingdom Government, like that of the
Netherlands, would be forced to consider what further measures could be
taken against the Burmese Government.
THE WORKER MEMBER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM endorsed his Government's
sentiments that the visit of the High-Level Team in September of this year
was a step in the right direction. However, he did wish to raise certain
issues. First of all, he wondered whether it would not be better for the
High-Level Team to undertake this mission a little later when the monsoon
season was over. Moreover, in order for the High-Level Team to do its work
effectively and visit various regions of Myanmar during a three-week
period, it might be preferable to appoint five members rather than three to
this High-Level Team. In addition, a single visit of a three-week duration
might prove insufficient to provide a clear and comprehensive picture of
the situation regarding forced labour in the country. Hence, it would be
necessary to ensure that follow-up visits were undertaken. Preferably, a
permanent ILO presence in the country could well prove necessary to ensure
that Myanmar remained free of forced labour. Another important aspect was
the requirement of full cooperation from the Government of Myanmar in
providing access for the High-Level Team to the border areas. A very
important issue was that of the protection of witnesses. Those who were
accused might seek reprisals. Indeed, the Worker members knew, and it had
been reported by Amnesty International, that some 12 persons who had spoken
to a UN envoy had subsequently been detained, tortured and given long
prison sentences. Hence, it was the responsibility of all involved,
including the Government of Myanmar, the Office, the High-Level Team, as
well as governments who maintained a mission in the country to ensure that
those who volunteered to give evidence were not subjected to reprisals.
Finally, persons who were not part of the current Government, including
members of the democratic opposition, should be involved in the work of the
High-Level Team.
THE GOVERNMENT MEMBER OF JAPAN indicated that the Government of Myanmar had
taken a variety of legislative and administrative measures to eradicate
forced labour. While results at the level of implementation remained to be
seen, he considered that a constructive approach with the Government of
Myanmar was the only one that would solve the problem prevailing in that
country. The ILO was to be commended for its cooperation with the
Government of Myanmar. The Government of Japan was constantly in touch with
Myanmar at several levels in order to remind it of the need to cooperate
with the ILO. Finally, the speaker stressed that his Government's
relationship with Myanmar, including in the form of development assistance,
did not and would not in any way induce, directly or indirectly, forced
labour in that country. In this regard, he emphasized that the assistance
by the Japanese Government to repair the Baluchaung Hydropower Station was
only intended to prevent, in the future, further harm to the general
population by the deterioration of the said power plant. Regarding this
assistance, he pointed out also that the Japanese Government took into
account the solicitation made by the Special Representative of the United
Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Razali.
THE GOVERNMENT MEMBER OF PORTUGAL endorsed the interventions made by the
Government member of Sweden on behalf of the European Union and the
Government member of the United Kingdom on the measures taken by the
European Union with regard to putting to effect article 33 of the ILO
Constitution. The Commission of Inquiry had recommended that a series of
administrative, legislative and regulatory measures be taken so as to put
an end to the practice of forced labour, and to ensure the application of
Convention No. 29. The previous year, the Governing Body of the
International Labour Organization had noted that such measures had not been
taken and thereby for the first time referred to article 33 of the
Constitution. That decision was taken in order to strengthen the role
played by the ILO as well as enhance its credibility in the promotion of
fundamental rights at work. In that context, there was reason to endorse
the sending of a High-Level Team, even if the option of a continued
presence in the country would have been better. A step forward could be
made by the Team provided that three conditions were fulfilled: the mission
should be free to move; it should have access to all requested places; and
finally, the Director-General should be free to select its members. As a
member of the Governing Body, Portugal expressed its specific wish to
participate in a constructive tripartite discussion on that question at the
next session of the Governing Body.
THE GOVERNMENT MEMBER OF BRAZIL reiterated his support for constructive
dialogue and cooperation as the way to resolve the question of forced
labour in Myanmar. He underlined the importance of the ILO presence on the
ground as a way of ensuring the credibility and effectiveness of the
legislative and administrative measures applied by the Government. He
expressed his support for the visit by a High-Level Team to Myanmar which
would allow an objective evaluation of the measures adopted. That
evaluation would provide a sufficient basis for the Governing Body, at its
November meeting, to be able to recommend in an impartial and objective
manner the measures to be taken in the future. The representative of the
Director-General indicated that he already had some clarifications on
certain points raised. Regarding the participation and provision of
information to actors other than the government authorities in the process
which lead to the Memorandum of Understanding and the High-Level Team, he
underlined that Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi had been informed of the content and
importance of the Memorandum of Understanding. In this respect, she had
expressed the wish to get in contact with the High-Level Team. Moreover,
regarding the representatives of civil society, a list of NGOs present in
Myanmar had already been established. Regarding the period during which the
High-Level Team would visit Myanmar, the month of September had been chosen
after taking into consideration the climatic conditions and the need to
have adequate time to prepare a report for the November Governing Body.
These considerations were of a practical nature and the exact date could be
reexamined later on.
THE EMPLOYER MEMBERS recalled, at the end of a detailed and serious
discussion, that their position, as clearly presented at the outset, was
fully in line with the steps taken up to now by the various bodies of the
ILO. It was their impression that there was today a rather uniform
evaluation of many aspects of the case by different members of the
Committee, which had expressed very cautious hope. The Government of
Myanmar had made the first step in the right direction. However, the
desired results had not yet begun to become reality. Great efforts were
still required to overcome the difficulties, which included the size of the
country, the long duration of forced labour practices, as well as the fact
that over the years many authorities in Myanmar had become used to the
practice of forced labour: in particular many civil and military
authorities were beneficiaries of forced labour and this was a barrier to
change. In view of these facts, the results sought were a difficult task
and a challenge for all involved. The agreements so far reached did not yet
guarantee anything: they contained promises and formal arrangements for
addressing the problem. Without real goodwill nothing would succeed - not
even an objective assessment of what was actually occurring in practice.
Under these circumstances, it was necessary to stick without any
modification to the decisions taken up to now by the ILO bodies. In this
respect they could not support the Government of Myanmar's suggestion in
the Memorandum on the understanding between the Myanmar Government and the
ILO on the modalities of objective assessment on Myanmar's observance of
ILO Convention No. 29 (document D. 9) to loosen the measures taken
regarding Myanmar in application of article 33 of the Constitution. Up to
now, all small steps announced stood on sheets of paper. But the
Committee's objective here as with regard to all ILO standards was to shape
social reality. Where could this be more necessary than with regard to
human rights? Being optimists with experience - i. e., realists, the
Employer members considered that further developments in this case should
be followed soberly and critically, with hope for the people in Myanmar.
THE WORKER MEMBERS said that they had listened carefully to the various
statements. Despite the information provided by the Government
representative of Myanmar, the serious violations of Convention No. 29
continued. The case under examination was extremely important because of
the gravity of the violations and the continued systematic, not to say
institutionalized, practice of forced labour. The Organization's objective
remained to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. To
that end, the Government must ensure that national legislation and practice
were aligned with Convention No. 29 such that no forced or compulsory
labour could be imposed by the authorities and that persons who infringed
the prohibition on forced labour would be punished. The ILO was the only
body which could objectively evaluate whether the recommendations had been
implemented. The High-Level Team was a first step in that evaluation. The
Worker members, however, considered that the composition and functioning of
that Team should meet certain criteria. It should be composed of people
with a high degree of expertise in the subject, including at least one of
the members of the Commission of Inquiry and participation by the
International Labour Standards Department. It should be big enough to cover
the different regions of the country and the various types of forced labour
which had been identified. It should have access to all the information,
persons and places that it wished both inside and outside the country. It
should have interpreters available. It should be guaranteed that witnesses
would enjoy effective protection and it should be allowed to choose an
appropriate period to undertake its mission. The Worker members were at
pains to emphasize that the mission to be carried out by that Team should
under no circumstances be regarded as the end but rather the beginning of a
process. The Organization must pursue the examination of this case
assiduously and undertake the objective evaluation of the implementation of
the three recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Further missions
would be necessary for that purpose. In conclusion, the Government
representative who spoke on behalf of the European Union deserved support
when he stated that the measures taken in application of article 33 of the
Constitution could only be lifted if forced labour was genuinely abolished
and the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry effectively implemented.
THE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE OF MYANMAR noted that a number of delegations
of member States had expressed their appreciation concerning the agreement
between his Government and the ILO on modalities of the ILO objective
assessment. He expressed his gratitude to the ASEAN member States and the
member States of the Asia/Pacific Region for their joint statement on the
issue. With regard to the timing of the visit of the High-Level Team, the
speaker recalled that the month of September had been chosen after taking
into consideration the weather conditions. The monsoons would almost have
stopped by then and the High-Level Team could undertake its visits without
any problem. However, other dates were also possible such as the month of
October as had been suggested. Regarding the size of the High-Level Team,
nothing had yet been decided on this matter. However, he pointed out that
the membership of the High-Level Team should not be too large. Furthermore,
measures were already being taken with regard to implementation. In this
respect the National Implementation Committee had formed five teams in
April 2001 to ensure implementation. However, the application of legal
texts required a certain amount of time which was why no immediate results
could be observed. With regard to the protection of witnesses, these were
fully protected by the existing provisions of the Penal Code. In this
respect, the legal system of the country was inherited from the British
legal system and was therefore very solid. Concerning freedom of movement
of the members of the High-Level Team, they could have free access to all
areas, including those where there were allegations of the use of forced
labour. The only exception to this were those places where the security of
the members of the High-Level Team would be under threat due to the ongoing
activities of the armed insurgents. This issue was already reflected in the
terms of the Agreement. The Government representative stressed that now was
the time for confidence-building through the High-Level Team which would
conduct an objective assessment mission in Myanmar this year. The
Government of Myanmar was ready to cooperate with, and facilitate the work
of the High-Level Team, in accordance with the agreement on the modalities
of the objective assessment. He asked that the words of appreciation and
positive comments made by speakers during the present sitting of the
Committee be reflected in the closing remarks of the Chairperson. He also
asked that the closing remarks reflect the opinion of member States that
the 282nd Session of the Governing Body in November 2001 should review the
measures taken against Myanmar under article 33 of the ILO Constitution in
light of the outcome of the forthcoming visit of the High-Level Team, with
a view to removing them.
THE WORKER MEMBERS, referring to their earlier statements, indicated that
they had not been convinced by the Government's plea.
THE EMPLOYER MEMBERS recalled that their hopes, expectations and demands
had been summed up in their earlier declarations; positive results were
still awaited and could not be taken for granted.
CONCLUSION
The Committee held a special sitting on the application by Myanmar of the
Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), further to the resolution adopted
by the International Labour Conference at its 88th Session, concerning the
application of article 33 of the Constitution. It noted the oral and
written information submitted by the Government, and the discussion which
followed. It recalled that this case had been discussed repeatedly in the
Committee before the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry under article
26 of the Constitution, and deplored the lack of progress towards the
elimination of forced and compulsory labour. The Committee noted the
results of the Director-General's appeals to the ILO constituents,
including employers' and workers' organizations as well as governments, and
other international organizations, to review their relations with the
Government of Myanmar in order to ensure that the Government of Myanmar
could not take advantage of relations with them to perpetuate or extend the
system of forced or compulsory labour referred to by the Commission of
Inquiry. It also noted that, according to information submitted to the
Governing Body in March 2001 and to the Committee, forced and compulsory
labour was still being imposed on the citizens of the country. The
Committee recalled that the Commission of Inquiry had called upon the
Government to halt all use of forced or compulsory labour, to amend its
legislation to render the practice illegal, and to punish all those who
imposed forced labour. The Committee noted that Order No. 1/ 99 as
supplemented by the Order of 27 October 2000 was a relevant but
insufficient basis for improving legislation. The conditions spelled out by
the Committee of Experts should be applied in good faith, and further
measures would be needed to ensure that this was in fact done. The
Committee welcomed the Government's decision to resume cooperation with the
ILO. In this regard, it noted with interest that a recent mission by
representatives of the Director-General (1719 May 2001) had concluded an
understanding for an objective assessment of the situation of forced labour
following measures announced by the Government of Myanmar, and that the
results of this objective assessment were to be brought before the
Governing Body at its November 2001 session. It was pointed out that this
was only a beginning, and the Committee called upon the Government once
again to take all possible measures with the greatest urgency to eliminate
forced and compulsory labour in all its forms, in following the
recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry; to punish those responsible
for imposing forced labour; and to give full cooperation to the High-Level
Team which was to carry out the objective assessment referred to above. The
Committee emphasized that, taking into account the discussion in the
Committee, the High-Level Team should: (1) have sufficient authority to
programme its activities; (2) have an appropriate composition which will
allow the work to be distributed among its members; (3) be selected within
the sole discretion of the Director-General; (4) be able to carry out its
investigation in all the places in the country which it considered
necessary to visit; and (5) have unrestricted access to all necessary
sources of information. Those people who provided information to the Team
must enjoy full protection. It was also noted that the United Nations
Economic and Social Council had been asked to discuss the situation at its
July 2001 session. The Committee requested the Governing Body to assess the
report of the High-Level Team at its November 2001 session in order to
consider what further steps were necessary to be taken at that time by the
Government or by the ILO, and recalled that the Government should provide a
detailed report to the Committee of Experts at its next session on all
measures taken to ensure observance of the Convention in law and in practice.
THE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE OF MYANMAR asked that the closing remarks of
the President reflect the positive comments regarding the agreement reached
by the Government and the ILO on the modalities for the objective
assessment which had been made by delegates, including a number of Workers'
delegates. This would introduce better balance into the text. He suggested
therefore that the sentence in the conclusions beginning with "In this
regard, it noted with interest ..." read "In this regard, it noted with
appreciation...". He also suggested that the phrase concerning Order No. 1/
99 reflect the original wording of the Committee of Experts which read that
the Order "... could provide a statutory basis for ensuring compliance with
the Convention in practice ..." [paragraph 7]. The experts, who are
internationally recognized independent persons, had made an objective
assessment in moderate language which should be retained.
In response to several questions, THE CHAIRMAN clarified that the phrase in
the conclusions concerning Order No. 1/99 to which the Government
representative referred, used different wording but did not modify the
conclusions on the same subject in paragraph 7 of the Committee of Experts'
observation, and was entirely compatible with the Experts' meaning. This
clarification would figure in the report of the discussion in the
Committee's report.
THE EMPLOYER MEMBERS proposed to insert a paragraph in the general part of
the Committee's report to the Conference to indicate that the Committee had
held a special sitting on the issue of forced labour in Myanmar. The
proceedings of this sitting should be reproduced in a special Part Three of
the report. The Worker members agreed with this proposal.
END OF DOCUMENT
This document is divided into two parts for easier downloading. The
complete, authoritative version is on the ILO website in pdf form at
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc89/pdf/pr-19-3.pdf